Is a periacetabular osteotomy as efficacious in retroversion as it is in dysplasia?: The role of femoral anteversion on outcome. (1st September 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Verhaegen, Jeroen; Salih, Saif; Thiagarajah, Shankar; Grammatopoulos, George; Witt, Johan D.
• Is Part Of: Bone & joint open. Volume 2:Number 9(2021)
• Page Start: 757
• Page End: 764
• Publication Date: 2021-09-01
• Subjects: Periacetabular osteotomy -- Retroversion -- Dysplasia -- Femoral anteversion -- dysplasia -- periacetabular osteotomy -- hips -- Acetabular retroversion -- patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) -- Femoral version -- lateral centre-edge angle (LCEA) -- Arthritic Hip -- femoral anteversion -- hypermobility; Orthopedic surgery -- Periodicals; Musculoskeletal system -- Surgery -- Periodicals; 617.47
• DOI: 10.1302/2633-1462.29.BJO-2021-0096.R2
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2633-1462

Abstract

Abstract : Aims: Periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) is an established treatment for acetabular dysplasia. It has also been proposed as a treatment for patients with acetabular retroversion. By reviewing a large cohort, we aimed to test whether outcome is equivalent for both types of morphology and identify factors that influenced outcome. Methods: A single-centre, retrospective cohort study was performed on patients with acetabular retroversion treated with PAO (n = 62 hips). Acetabular retroversion was diagnosed clinically and radiologically (presence of a crossover sign, posterior wall sign, lateral centre-edge angle (LCEA) between 20° and 35°). Outcomes were compared with a control group of patients undergoing PAO for dysplasia (LCEA < 20°; n = 86 hips). Femoral version was recorded. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), complications, and reoperation rates were measured. Results: The mean Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS) preoperatively was 58.6 (SD 16.1) for the dysplastic hips and 52.5 (SD 12.7) for the retroverted hips (p = 0.145). Postoperatively, mean NAHS was 83.0 (SD 16.9) and 76.7 (SD 17.9) for dysplastic and retroverted hips respectively (p = 0.041). Difference between pre- and postoperative NAHS was slightly lower in the retroverted hips (18.3 (SD 22.1)) compared to the dysplastic hips (25.2 (SD 15.2); p = 0.230). At mean 3.5 years' follow-up (SD 1.9), one hip needed a revision PAO and no hips were converted to total hip arthroplasty (THA) in the retroversion group. In the control group, six hips (7.0%) were revised to THA. No differences in complications (p = 0.106) or in reoperation rate (p = 0.087) were seen. Negative predictors of outcome for patients undergoing surgery for retroversion were female sex, obesity, hypermobility, and severely decreased femoral anteversion. Conclusion: A PAO is an effective surgical intervention for acetabular retroversion and produces similar improvements when used to treat dysplasia. Femoral version should be routinely assessed in these patients and when extremely low (< 0°), as an additional procedure to address this abnormality may be necessary. Females with signs of hypermobility should also be consulted of the likely guarded improvement. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(9):757–764.